Fatal crash in California on July 15

[RobertGary1]

16 minutes ago, steingar said:

Here are a few facts according to the folks on this site. Full fuel, 3 pax, high DA, and short strip with a pilot not in the habit of second guessing himself. What really bothers me is this isn’t anything new.

Ive done that many times without being over gross. Not saying one way or another just that the man deserves the benefit of the doubt until we have facts. 
Btw someone reported that field didn’t have fuel so he wouldn’t have been full fuel.  Who knows 

[RobertGary1]

57 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Exact same here, Richard.  Well said.  I have known many pilots who have died flying, though.  Moreover, it occurred to me recently just how many of my pilot buddies have also died in recent years due to natural causes.  I hope the flight schools are really cranking them out, but if they aren’t we pilots are a dying breed.  

I am truly sorry for your loss.  

Jim

Flight schools are insane right now. Booked solid everyday. My helicopter cfi has 30 students assigned to him which is insane. I don’t ever remember flight schools being so busy. 

[RobertGary1]

1 hour ago, TGreen said:

I continue to own and fly - notwithstanding those considerations - because I still enjoy it. It is not cost-free, hassle-free, or risk-free. But it is fun and there is nothing like it.

What is the alternative? We’ll all go. Is it better to go drooling in an old aged home sitting in your own poo?

[carusoam]

3 hours ago, DCarlton said:

Tangent...  I consider myself a cautious and safety conscious pilot particularly when I carry passengers.  I'm technically savvy if I do say so myself.  :/ My aircraft has been very well maintained.  Yet and read these reports and sometimes feel like selling and getting out while I still can.  I don't worry about myself so much but I'm exceedingly troubled by the prospect of hurting anyone else at this point in life.  Couple this with recurring physicals, insurance, tie down fees, annual inspections, unexpected maintenance, fight reviews, currency requirements and sometimes... flying just doesn't seem to make sense now that I no longer have a work-related mission for the airplane.  Anyone else have similar thoughts?  What drives you to continue other than the fact that your license was so hard to obtain in the first place that you just don't want to give it up?  I think there have beens studies done why pilots give up flying when they're at their best after accumulating a lifetime of experience.  Thoughts?   

Expect a few things to occur after an event rocks the community…

All of the emotional steps of recovering from a loss occur…  the older you get, the more experience you obtain…

 

From this event…

Some lessons will be learned…

Some lessons discussed, may be inspired by, but not directly related to this accident…

Some good will come from this tragic event…  It won’t replace the loss…

 

One thing for sure…  being part of the MS community, will give you the opportunity to be a safer pilot…

You will know all of the laws of physics, and how they apply to Mooney flying…

You will know what all of the other MSers are using, or doing, to avoid such tragedies…

You will know how other people become comfortable with the questions regarding hanging up one’s flying spurs…

 

Maybe it is time for somebody to hang up one’s spurs…  but, it takes more than one bad input to make such a powerful, long lasting, decision…

 

By being part of the MS community…

Flying safety increases…

Flying knowledge improves…

Unknown risks become more known…

Costs of flying become less…

 

The more you know… the better it gets…

There are a few things strange about being part of the MS community….

There aren’t many degrees of Kevin Bacon between all Mooney pilots…

Thousands are here that you will know or recognize their existence…

Many more will be part of other Mooney organizations…. Like the Caravan…

Even more will be known by other Mooniacs at their home drome…

 

It is absolutely normal to feel the loss of a lost Mooney brother…

I’m sure of one thing…

Flying a Mooney becomes part of one’s inner soul.  You can take years off, or a coupe of days… you can always come back when you are ready… 

There is guidance for flying after experiencing a loss similar to this…  it’s all about avoiding distractions… things like this can weigh on your mind when you need to be focussed on the challenges of flying….  (Written by an MSer about a decade ago… @mooneygirl)

Everyone grieves differently, for each type of loss…

Hang together as a community… it is sure to get better…

I bet…  leaving your thoughts in a post like yours… and the others (even the quirky ones)… have a benefit to you and the community…

If you find yourself thinking about aviation accidents while flying…. Consider the U-turn to get out of the cognitive cloud… 

PP thoughts only, not a therapist…

More prayers for our lost Mooney brother and best regards,

-a-

[Skates97]

1 hour ago, steingar said:

Here are a few facts according to the folks on this site. Full fuel, 3 pax, high DA, and short strip with a pilot not in the habit of second guessing himself. What really bothers me is this isn’t anything new.

That was me, based on his flying I thought he would have been full fuel to make the flight back to KFUL without a fuel stop. Further research showed there is no fuel at Dinsmore so he probably had between 15-25+ on board. There is a fuel stop about 30 minutes away which was probably going to be his next stop if I was guessing. If he had 15 gallons all in one tank that's an easy hop landing with 10 still on board. 

He was still likely too heavy for the short strip in a small valley with DA coming into play. 

[flyer338]

I used to fly my C model out of Dinsmore somewhat regularly. The useful load on my J is 904lbs. Figure 20 gallons of fuel remaining when they landed, more than enough to get to Fortuna. That leaves 784 lbs for people and bags. I think that on a hot day I would want to be well under gross weight before taking off. At least until I had experience with this plane on that strip. Dinsmore sets down in the valley near the Van Duzen river. The east end of he runway comes very close to Hwy. 36. Most planes, even at light weights, do not have enough climb performance to climb straight out, in either direction. The wind usually favors a west bound departure.

Light airplanes do not always have the performance necessary to take off at gross weight.

[DCarlton]

4 hours ago, TGreen said:

I continue to own and fly - notwithstanding those considerations - because I still enjoy it. It is not cost-free, hassle-free, or risk-free. But it is fun and there is nothing like it.

I think it's the hassle that's dominating my experience at the moment.  It's the days, weeks, months you invest (or loose) every year to meet the requirements necessary to continue to have fun.  Was trying to get through an IFR refresher after letting my currency lapse during COVID, then my annual expired and now I'm waiting on an annual.  Thus the "reflection"...

[carusoam]

9 hours ago, DCarlton said:

I think it's the hassle that's dominating my experience at the moment.  It's the days, weeks, months you invest (or loose) every year to meet the requirements necessary to continue to have fun.  Was trying to get through an IFR refresher after letting my currency lapse during COVID, then my annual expired and now I'm waiting on an annual.  Thus the "reflection"...

You have just described what being human is like…

there is always going to be something weighing on your systems…

when you think you are overloaded… something else will try to get loaded right on top… 

Another bill will need to be paid… Another health issue will come up…

Speaking of other things that always come up…

The sun always rises…

if you haven’t been on this cycle of fun for decades… hang tight…. You will get better at handling the ups and downs…

Once you have seen a few ups and downs… you become qualified to help somebody else out with theirs…. 

Go MS!

Best regards,

-a-

[Bravoman]

This is a terrible story. Precisely the thing that gives GA a bad name in the eyes of the general public.  Perhaps this pilot should have been bluntly told that given his cavalier and irresponsible attitude he had no business flying planes. The worst part about it always is the non-pilot victims who placed their lives in the hands of someone they mistakenly believed to be a competent, responsible pilot. 

[bradp]

Sorry for this loss.  
Often hear “he was such a cautious / careful / meticulous pilot” after a tragedy like this. 
Apparently and unfortunately not in this case. 

[DCarlton]

1 hour ago, carusoam said:

You have just described what being human is like…

there is always going to be something weighing on your systems…

when you think you are overloaded… something else will try to get loaded right on top… 

Another bill will need to be paid… Another health issue will come up…

Speaking of other things that always come up…

The sun always rises…

if you haven’t been on this cycle of fun for decades… hang tight…. You will get better at handling the ups and downs…

Once you have seen a few ups and downs… you become qualified to help somebody else out with theirs…. 

Go MS!

Best regards,

-a-

Not really a matter of handling the ups and downs.  I've been flying for 35 years.  It's a matter of too many choices as to where to spend your "fun" time.  And it's the feeling of "been there done that".  Stories like this probably have a lot of folks evaluating their choices.  But yes MS is a great resource and community.  It's like turning on the flying boost pump.  BTW, I thought you weren't therapist?  ;>  

[mike_elliott]

In preparation for the Mooney Summit VIII 2 days ago, Seth Rick and I met with the Tampa Airport authority, Atlas Aviation, Hotels etc., and the FAAsteam Program manager Andrew Crossman. Andrew told me people that participate in Wings programs are over 80% less likely to be involved in incidents and accidents, a stat I believe. He indicated our event was like a wings safety standown on steroids. I opined that perhaps its not necessarily the wings or Summit programs that contribute to the statistics being so much better, but the safety culture and orientation of the pilots who attend and participate in these programs and events, to which he was in agreement.

I encourage all of my clients to participate in such seminars, events and knowledge forums, as it can only help us take out the unforgiving nature of making a mistake, allowing a mechanical issue develop, etc from our passion of flying. Train and fly like the pros, and we will be rewarded with a safety record comparable to theirs. If there is a question, the answer is probably no.

Thanks Richard for running point gathering contact info for the Bill Gilliland foundation to reach out to his surviving son, a thankless job Alice will undertake upon learning an address.

 

[Parker_Woodruff]

35 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

In preparation for the Mooney Summit VIII 2 days ago, Seth Rick and I met with the Tampa Airport authority, Atlas Aviation, Hotels etc., and the FAAsteam Program manager Andrew Crossman. Andrew told me people that participate in Wings programs are over 80% less likely to be involved in incidents and accidents, a stat I believe. He indicated our event was like a wings safety standown on steroids. I opined that perhaps its not necessarily the wings or Summit programs that contribute to the statistics being so much better, but the safety culture and orientation of the pilots who attend and participate in these programs and events, to which he was in agreement.

I encourage all of my clients to participate in such seminars, events and knowledge forums, as it can only help us take out the unforgiving nature of making a mistake, allowing a mechanical issue develop, etc from our passion of flying. Train and fly like the pros, and we will be rewarded with a safety record comparable to theirs. If there is a question, the answer is probably no.

Thanks Richard for running point gathering contact info for the Bill Gilliland foundation to reach out to his surviving son, a thankless job Alice will undertake upon learning an address.

 

A clear trend I saw in my former career as an underwriter is the pilots who were active in a manufacturer-specific owner organization were much less loss prone. It’s probably a combination of the conscientiousness of the owner plus the value provided by the top tier owner organizations.

If you participate here with a mentality of being humble, willing to learn, and know and acknowledge your limits, you’re in a safer class of pilots greatly. 

For me, I realized last year that sitting in the right seat for so long I was getting out of my flow and have decided to take a pause from instructing until I buy a plane again. And I’m a 32 year old, ~1900 hour ATP, with a bunch of cool classes on my certificates.

You have to do aviation right.

[RobertGary1]

1 hour ago, Bravoman said:

This is a terrible story. Precisely the thing that gives GA a bad name in the eyes of the general public.  Perhaps this pilot should have been bluntly told that given his cavalier and irresponsible attitude he had no business flying planes. The worst part about it always is the non-pilot victims who placed their lives in the hands of someone they mistakenly believed to be a competent, responsible pilot. 

If it turns out that he was under gross and had an unavoidable mechanical issue will you post a follow up apology to the man’s reputation? 

a friend of mine had a similar accident. Fortunately all lived but barely. Initial report was 100% the same as this. Turned out he was not over gross and that the mechanical fuel pump had shed debris into the fuel system. 
 

i know as pilots we have a great need to cognitively distance ourselves from these situations and the easiest way is to dismiss these accidents with a “the pilot just did something wrong” but that doesn’t always turn out the case. 
 

personally I will withhold judgment until professionals assess the accident. 

[aviatoreb]

3 hours ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

A clear trend I saw in my former career as an underwriter is the pilots who were active in a manufacturer-specific owner organization were much less loss prone. It’s probably a combination of the conscientiousness of the owner plus the value provided by the top tier owner organizations.

If you participate here with a mentality of being humble, willing to learn, and know and acknowledge your limits, you’re in a safer class of pilots greatly. 

For me, I realized last year that sitting in the right seat for so long I was getting out of my flow and have decided to take a pause from instructing until I buy a plane again. And I’m a 32 year old, ~1900 hour ATP, with a bunch of cool classes on my certificates.

You have to do aviation right.

I think you are right.  In fact, about a 15 years ago give or take, when I was new to flying and had just gotten my first new to me airplane, a Diamond DA40 I had also been shopping cirrus.  One thing I read was that at that time at least, COPA kept some statistics (for those that don't know, COPA is sort of like the cirrus version of mooneyspace).  Anyway they found in their statistics that the members of COPA were suffering crashes and incidents at 1/4 the rate of the cirrus pilots as a whole.  That exact number may well have changed since then since cirrus has done a good job of spreading a safety culture, and so on, but I think that agrees with your assertion.

So I bought a diamond but decided I should be participating in the community, the forum (and also the local community at the airport - what do you know I ended up the village airport committee chair for half a dozen years).  Then when I sold the diamond I looked and found the mooney community when I got a mooney - hello mooneyspace!

I have certainly learned a lot while here.  Technical things about nuts and bolts jack screws etc about the airplane.  About how the air traffic control system works.  How people approach weather, how to make no go decisions - and on and on and on.

I am not sure if it is correlational or causal but I like to think it is a real effect that you describe (correlational would be the kinds of pilots who are prone to be more thoughtful or systematic or whatever it is that makes the population at a whole a little safer...also tend to join the forum) or (causal - actually being here helps us to become better pilots, decision makers, etc, group think good).  I tend to think its a little bit of both.

I made a no go decision today that I don't regret.  My wife and son wanted to go to CT today.  There was weather enroute - I am pretty sure I could have zigged and zagged around it, but it looked like it would be pretty bumpy (and they are not as tolerant of not smooth rides as me), a challenging approach upon arrival, and in a rush to turn around and get back here before it goes bad back here.  Even though I could do it, probably, I wasn't full sure I wouldn't end up diverting or making my wife question my judgment and she likes to fly with me and she is relaxed because she appreciates that sometimes we drive (or I made her drive today - she is still driving 6 hours...and I am here relaxing hahaha... I had a lovely 45 min training flight in circles around here  instead).

And I had made a 45 min going no where in particular flight on Tuesday planning for today just to burn off enough fuel to make weight for todays cancelled flight.  Oh well.  No regrets.

Thanks for your comment Parker.  It got the wheels spinning on that stat thing.

[MIm20c]

To me it sounds like he liked to fly with 3 passengers often. Too bad he didn’t keep the 210, it might have saved his bacon in this case.  I really don’t like the character of the pilot brought up so soon in a devastating crash like this… 

[GeeBee]

3 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

If it turns out that he was under gross and had an unavoidable mechanical issue will you post a follow up apology to the man’s reputation? 

Sometime back, an AirTransat A330 ran out of fuel and dead sticked into the Azores, successfully with no injuries. The cause of fuel exhaustion was a fuel leak. The pilot was hailed a hero, and there came an AD on the fuel pipe which cracked and leaked. My immediate question was, "what did the "howgozit" log show as he logged across each 10 degrees of longitude. Beyond not noticing the over burn by comparing the fuel used through the flow meters to the gauges to the "howgozit" this pilot it turns out had previously, several years earlier ran an Airbus so close on fuel, he flamed out on taxi in at I believe Toronto.

Equally so, two CFI's took off from KRHV 13L in a Bellanca Super Viking. The older CFI being checked out by a young man of immense character and good sense. The older CFI was an IBM EE and one of those who liked to go against "conventional wisdom" such as "turn back landings". He would sit in the flight school lounge puff his pipe and his ego with the younger bucks about things which were good operating judgement but that he wanted to "change". I as the Chief Instructor was opposed to letting him within a 1000' of the place, but I was over-ridden by the owner. The result was when this Bellanca came off the ground and the engine sputtered his "alternative thinking" killed him, the younger CFI and  seriously injured two others who were not supposed to be in the airplane. 

In another case a LOT Airlines 767 took off from JFK. About an hour out it lost all hydraulics in the center system. The pilot said, "no problem, I have left and right systems and while the flaps and gear are on the center system, I can extend them electrically on landing in Warsaw." Except.......the center system also drives the HMG, hydraulic motor generator. The generator that works when all others fail. It was a grotesque lapse in aeronautical decision making. Flew an airplane across an ocean without back up generatio. To make matters worse, when he arrived in Warsaw he failed to notice the CB popped on the electric back up to the gear and low on fuel with little time to sort out the problem, belly landed a perfectly good 767. He is still lauded soon YouTube, but he made very poor decisions from the moment he lost center hydraulics..

All this is a long way of saying poor decision making and lax operational standards attested to by others here may not be the "probable cause" but they also don't help break the accident chain of events because in aviation it is rare to have one "single thing" cause an accident. Rather it is a series of events where a sober, considered and introspective decision made out of a constant habit of good operating standards would have changed the outcome.

[carusoam]

4 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

If it turns out that he was under gross and had an unavoidable mechanical issue will you post a follow up apology to the man’s reputation? 

a friend of mine had a similar accident. Fortunately all lived but barely. Initial report was 100% the same as this. Turned out he was not over gross and that the mechanical fuel pump had shed debris into the fuel system. 
 

i know as pilots we have a great need to cognitively distance ourselves from these situations and the easiest way is to dismiss these accidents with a “the pilot just did something wrong” but that doesn’t always turn out the case. 
 

personally I will withhold judgment until professionals assess the accident. 

Expect this to be a highly probable situation…

We won’t know for a long time, or if ever… what really happened…

 

The conversation, although highly speculative, continues to happen…

care should be made while writing… to not besmirch the reputation of a passed aviator… even if he was the worst aviator ever…

 

The benefit to the community… exchanges of ideas for some.  Some real learning for others… a cathartic experience possibly…

There will be plenty of time in the future... To discuss what really happened.  If that ever comes to light.

 

I would really like to know what made the last Long body fall from the sky on T/O… I don’t think we will ever find out…. But the conversations regarding probable causes, flight data, and the environment are enlightening…

 

So…   Continue with the speculative conversation with extra effort towards maintaining a positive attitude towards both the living and the dead…

We know family will be exposed to our words… as the days go by.

PP thoughts only, not a referee…

Best regards,

-a-

 

[A64Pilot]

Very few single engine aircraft I have flown can you fill the seats with adults and the tanks, to say nothing of baggage.

The C-210 is a good four adult airplane, I consider my J model a great airplane for a couple, maybe with kids, but not four adults.

‘I lost two very good friends a couple of years ago, they had just taken off to go to Oshkosh in an SR-22, I believe they went inadvertent IMC and didn’t handle it well.

‘Probably over 20,000 hours between the two of them, the owner and I assume pilot was one of the best natural pilots I’ve flown with.

‘The Widows had a problem as there wasn’t enough left to even positively identify them from DNA for it seemed and excessive time, I don’t know if they were ever identified, and that apparently causes problems with insurence etc.

‘I don’t mean to be flippant, but stuff happens, all you can do is stack the odds in your favor, if my friends had waited until daylight, then they would have seen the overcast, it would only have been a 30 min wait or so.

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2019/07/cirrus-sr22-fatal-accident-occurred.html

Edited July 18, 2021 by A64Pilot

[bmcconnaha]

very sad, but a great reminder thread.  i know i may take some grief on this, but after taking the cirrus transistion into my sr22 that i owned before my J, there was a strong reccommendation on limiting yourself to fields longer than 2500.  I abide by that, even in my J.  if the conditions were perfect, and i was lightly loaded, i would maybe shorten that, assuming no obstructions at the end.  the sr22 would come off the runway, and you could climb pretty fast, also no gear to retract.  i factor the gear drag and the drag during retraction in to those minumums.  i have been surprised on a 3500 foot runway, with tall trees at the end.  i was full of fuel, and solo.  IO390 under the cowl of my J.  1000 foot shorter would have really been cutting it close.  personal minimums are a good thing.  Aviation consumers quote in thier review on the J model mooney always sticks in my head.  

"We noted what we consider to be a relatively high percentage of accidents due to either stall or other type of inflight loss of control—24. Most of the stall accidents were shortly after takeoff or go-around in high or hot conditions with the airplane fairly heavy. Uphill runways and/or intersection takeoffs on warm days are not friends to Mooney pilots."

  https://www.aviationconsumer.com/aircraftreviews/mooney-201-m20j/

Edited July 18, 2021 by bmcconnaha

[Bravoman]

8 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

If it turns out that he was under gross and had an unavoidable mechanical issue will you post a follow up apology to the man’s reputation? 

a friend of mine had a similar accident. Fortunately all lived but barely. Initial report was 100% the same as this. Turned out he was not over gross and that the mechanical fuel pump had shed debris into the fuel system. 
 

i know as pilots we have a great need to cognitively distance ourselves from these situations and the easiest way is to dismiss these accidents with a “the pilot just did something wrong” but that doesn’t always turn out the case. 
 

personally I will withhold judgment until professionals assess the accident. 

I sincerely hope I am wrong but don’t think that will be the case given the variables presented, including runway length, the likely DA, the  number of people in the aircraft and the statement of the member of this board, above, about the proclivities of the accident pilot. This is from a friend of that pilot. I have told a couple of pilots they have no business flying and have approached pilots on the ramp about what I thought might be potential overloading of their aircraft. I am far from perfect but I try to take this hobby of ours seriously. I think we all have a duty to speak up when the need clearly arises. It could save somebody’s life one day.

[Urs_Wildermuth]

11 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Very few single engine aircraft I have flown can you fill the seats with adults and the tanks, to say nothing of baggage.

The C-210 is a good four adult airplane, I consider my J model a great airplane for a couple, maybe with kids, but not four adults.

This is a major problem and, as a former loadmaster and load controller, my pet peeve, something I've never understood.

What is the point having 4  or 6 or whatever seats in an airplane when you can't fill them. Yes, with my experience I do know that the idea is that you do your calcs, don't lie about your weight and weigh down everything bla bla, but the harsh reality is, even those who do a WnB document before every flight would get a lot of it wrong if the plane was put on a a scale before departure. As one other guy here said, human nature. There is 4 seats, so it must be good for 4 people. Only that very few planes are. But yea, you can take 2 adults and two kids, so those two seats do have their function at times, but most of the time, they are just a vain temptation to do the obvious.

Passenger weights on GA planes (and your own): You have to ask. ok. What are they goona tell ya? Even if they are honest, they will tell you what they weighed last time after shower and toilet in the early morning in their flesh. What about clothes, what about the fact that you gain weight during the day? How many will actually fly naked to have the proper weight? If you have not done it, do a quick check and step on your scale once fully dressed and ready to fly, with all the stuff in your pockets, your coat, hat, shoes, walking stick and 3 work and private mobile phones in your pocket?.... 10 kgs on top? Easy.

This starts with the obvious C150, which has a full fuel payload of 150 kg, which is exactly 2 IATA of 1980's standard weight males. And there are such, but unfortunately few and far between. Add the tremendous baggage space and voila, I'd claim that a huge number of those planes even on standard training sorties are flown overweight.

Mooneys are excellent 2 seaters with full tanks, some are not even that. I've seen Acclaims and Ovations which can not be legally flown with full fuel by two even average people. There are Jetprops which have a full fuel payload of 100 kg, that is ONE guy at best. That plane is a 6 seater! What good does a plane do, which, fully fuelled must be piloted by an infant? Or, worse, is overweight fully fuelled without anyone sitting inside? Yes folks, that exists. Also airliners exist which have such funny arrangements.

And then: What about all the nick-nack stuff in the plane before even one guy sits in it? 20 kg? Optimistic maybe. Tool box, covers, this, that, head sets, replacement oil bottles, what else not, do they ever find the way into your loadsheet? If so, congratulations.

Yes I know all the haarumph about it, of course you can use the filler neck on some planes, of course you can calculate properly, of course it can be done with 1- 2 hours of fuel, but let's get real folks: Way too many won't.

The situation is not better in airliners either, only those beasts will not fall out of the sky so quickly. Still, it's worth looking at.

Being out of the airline business for 20 years by now I don't know what todays IATA standard pax weights are, only that they have gone up over the years. When I started, they were 75 kg for males (yes really), 65 for females, 35 for kids and 10 for babies. The calculatory hand bag was 3 kgs (yes, T H R E E) . Honestly? When I left, most airlines had gone up to between 78 and 85 kgs but now included hand luggage. Seriously?

Handluggage: Airlines today say 6 kg. ROFLOL. Yea right. I'd say 99% of the roller bags nobody weighs or counts are 15 kg or more. The only airlines who do weigh and cash on them are LLC's, like Ryan Air or some similar outfits. Get it: even if we assume that the average they use for load sheets including the 6 kgs is remotely correct, a 300 pax airliner will be 3 tons overweight only from excess handluggage, duty free, nick nacks and burger bags. Every day. Any full 737 at max TOW will be 1.5 tons over gross. Every day.

When I was in dispaching, we counted 100 kgs per passenger including baggage. Given that the standard bag allowance is 23 kgs, that is 77 average weight. If we get a plane  with 50/50 male females and a couple of kids, we MAY achieve that. More likely not. Handbaggage? See above.

If that was me, I'd be planning the average adult today with 90 kg dressed, 20 kgs hand luggage and 23 kgs check in baggage for the airlines. That is 133 kgs and that is what most people drag on board a plane. For light planes, plan with 100 kg per person and 50 per kid.

If we look at the real world, the only way to stop people flying overweight is to put a sensor in each landing gear and have an indicator in the airplane which gives you a clear indication and inhibits engine start if overweight.

And I am sure: If such a system would ever become available or mandated, many of us would get the shock of a lifetime the first time we use it.

 

(BTW, preciously few people are aware that also cars have maximum allowable weights.... and it is the holiday season. Every year in Europe, thousands of cars get weighed at border stations and get taken out of circulation because the family has once again overdone the holiday baggage BIG time. Most cars are not better than planes, only nobody cares. But if you have an accident and the lawyers start doing what they do best...... you'd better care even there. )

[exM20K]

2 hours ago, Urs_Wildermuth said:

Passenger weights on GA planes (and your own): You have to ask. ok. What are they goona tell ya? Even if they are honest, they will tell you what they weighed last time after shower and toilet in the early morning in their flesh. What about clothes, what about the fact that you gain weight during the day? How many will actually fly naked to have the proper weight? If you have not done it, do a quick check and step on your scale once fully dressed and ready to fly, with all the stuff in your pockets, your coat, hat, shoes, walking stick and 3 work and private mobile phones in your pocket?.... 10 kgs on top? Easy.

100% agree.  Especially in the winter, my clothes and kit can push 25# or more.  As you say, bags and all the junk we carry in the plane (what does a wet cover weigh?) add up.

In order to have a better handle on true takeoff weight, I carry a fishing scale (AKA: the fish reducer) in the baggage compartment.  My briefcase/computer bag is 15# typically.  My wife’s camera bag is pushing 35.   So right there is a true 50# that would be easy to assess visually as 20.

pity we can’t have truckstop-style CAT scales to optionally weigh our loaded aircraft. But “don’t ask, don’t tell” seems to prevail.

-dan

[toto]

Aviation Safety had a nice article a few years back covering max-weight takeoffs and considerations that pilots all too often forget.

https://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/max-gross-weight-ops/

Definitely worth a quick read, with a few cautionary tales in the mix. 

[Urs_Wildermuth]

3 minutes ago, exM20K said:

pity we can’t have truckstop-style CAT scales to optionally weigh our loaded aircraft. But “don’t ask, don’t tell” seems to prevail.

In my impression it goes more like "I'd rather not know". Kidding one self is easy.

CAT scales  would also be a possibility, yes.

Many are also very reluctant to ask for passenger weights, particularly when ladies are involved. Gives "don't ask, don't tell" another meaning.